BHUTTA SANTAL Vs. DAMA SANTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued on the District Magistrate to show cause why proceedings against the petitioner should not be quashed, or why such other order should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit. The ground on which the Rule was issued was that the petitioner was prosecuted for an offence of kidnapping, which was committed not within the British Territory but within the jurisdiction of the Moyurbhunj State, which has been held in Empress v. Keshub Mohajan 8 C. 985 : 11 C.L.R. 241 to be outside British India.

(2.) The District Magistrate seems to rely on Clause (4) of Section 181, Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that the offence of kidnapping may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the person kidnapped was kidnapped or was conveyed or concealed or detained. He seems to think that although a man may have kidnapped outside British territory, he may be prosecuted within the British territory. It was pointed out in the above case and recently pointed out in an unreported case, Moheswari Prosad Singh Deo v. Emperor 24 Ind. Cas. 945 : 18 C.W.N. 1178 : 15 Cr. L.J. 537 that we cannot extend the operation of the Criminal Procedure Code beyond British territory and allow a case to be tried within the British dominions for an offence committed in a State beyond British India.

(3.) The Rule is made absolute. The proceedings are quashed.